Poly, I'm sorry to hear that about your dad. It must be heart breaking for you while leaving you feeling powerless to help. I had a friend of mine succumb to obesity at age 56. She was pushing 400 at the time and was a mere 5 feet tall. She had all of the related health issues, but was in such denial that she could not admit that it was her weight that caused the diabetes and heart disease. She had necrotic skin disease so bad (under her "apron") that it took three of us to treat the sores that would not heal...two to hold her belly flap over while the other person apllied the treatment to her skin. The doctors tried to restrict her calories to 880 per day. She literally would pitch a fit and start screaming if she had to wait five minutes for something to eat.

Sadly, it seems that there is no changing someone at that stage and age when they have a life long habit of self indulgence for what ever reason. Preaching doesn't help. Loving them in spite of their behavior is the best that you can do. So sorry. ((hugs))

Palm Beach Gardens FL

Username hidden
(1095 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

*L* Poly, not only do I think the article and the premise are bizzare, but it wouldn't fly in the USA for the very reason that the ACLU would be filing lawsuits of discrimination on behalf of obese people everywhere.

If the government tried to be "fair" by posting similar clothing tag information on size "0" and "00" clothing for being too thin or anorexic, they may very well get the same backlash because the government is singling out certain types of people.

I'm all for posting dietary information on food menus and other items, but clothing? LMAO It's funny in the fact that the garment industry has already done it's job in dissuading us from thinking we are at or over a particular size by changing the very parameters of sizing expecially in women's clothes.( ie, todays size 4 is what was once a size 6). The psychology behind that effort being that we women think we are smaller, therefore, love the "new" size we are in and buy more of that brand of clothing. Funny, the garmenteers don't do that with men's clothing *L*

The one thing I would certainly agree with is the fact that obesity causes a myriad of costly health problems for the sufferer, thier families, employers, the insurance industry and the government. However, another ugly truth is that many of those people suffering obesity rarely live into their 60's. How many 300 pound people do you know in that age group? Unfortunately for them, very few. They have already succumbed to heart disease, stroke, diabetes and necrotic skin disease by the time they have reached their mid 50's.

Clothing tags with toll free hotlines isn't going to fix the problem, but early education and nutrition in the schools along with excercise programs (BRING BACK RECESS!!!) may do the job. Nutritional information on food lables and on menus will also help, but warning lables on clothing?

Belittling and humiliating people into doing something that is beneficial to them is never the right answer. It only creates more animosity and ultimately, backlash.

It would be a tough sell. How do you gently, lovingly tell people that their weight is killing them when they are essentially carrying the equivalent of 2 people (or more) on their singular frame when they are trying desperately to accept themselves the way they are? It's a dilemma for certain.

Palm Beach Gardens FL

Username hidden
(1095 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Many restaurants in PA are doing it voluntarily. Last week, while out shopping, quicky lunch I did Arby's drive through. While I rarely eat french fries, I grabbed a small roast beef and fries. Took one bite of the french fry and was like, WTF, yuck. They already implemented new cooking oil without the trans fat. Good thing for me, I will avoid french fries all together now. I believe it is the best thing though to alleviate all transfat as possible.

Jan

Jerome PA

Username hidden
(12186 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

On one hand I think it's a great idea and more restaurants should take the lead in other states as well. However, I am uncomfortable with the notion of government intervention in determining what restaurants can and cannot do as far as food ingredients. What's next? No butter? No cream cheese? Everything must be lowfat? How far will the government go, and where will it end?

That's all I need is to hear some waiter telling me I've already shaken my allotment of salt on my food for a person of my size; or maybe I have one walnut too many on my salad. It seems a move such as this may set a very strange precedent for sure. I'd rather see restaurants voluntarily change their menus to reflect what their customers want rather than have even more government intervention as to what THEY (the gov) thinks is in our best interest.

The whole idea of dining out is to enjoy something special that you wouldn't necessarily make at home. If a rush to ban "bad" foods and ingredients grows beyond trans fats, the government may make "eating dirt" (see the strange diet thread) a tasty alternative to restaurant fare *L*

PS: I do have great faith in the talents of chefs, however, to not let it plunge to such desperate measures ;-)